The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, Defendant A did not take charge of the management of users and did not have a duty of care to instruct the waiting for the boarding of Boar at a safe place, and the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles.

2) The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts) posted lifesaving staff within the place of business, Defendant B did not violate the duty to post lifesaving staff under the Water Leisure Safety Act, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. In the trial of the court below, the prosecutor of the judgment ex officio applied for changes in indictments against Defendant A as stated in the facts charged against Defendant A, and the judgment of the court below changed the subject of the judgment following the permission. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant A cannot be maintained.

However, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is still subject to adjudication within the scope related to the revised facts charged.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, Defendant A has a duty of care to take measures to prevent the aforementioned club members from entering the water area in the middle of the country, and it is reasonable to view that the occupational negligence that did not take such measures and the instant accident have considerable relation to the person.

Therefore, Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

(1) The members of the Ethiopia, including victims.